66 & 67

[rbbailey]

I'm a public school teacher. I am going to vote "No" on 66 & 67.

I would happily vote to raise my own taxes by some small amount if it was going to go directly to any specific worthy program. Schools could use more money, so I would vote to raise my own taxes if I knew that money would go to schools. So, why will I vote against 66 & 67?

First, and most obvious, it is a law that treats different citizens unequally. It punishes businesses and business owners for the bad budget created by the state. It punishes "rich" people for simply possessing money. It is guilt by association, it is institutionalized class warfare, it pits us against them, playing on childish jealousy and feelings of inferiority.

Second, it is a lie to say that this tax will not effect you if you do not own a business or are not an evil rich person. If you raise a tax on a business, that business will do one of two things: A. It will absorb the artificial inflation and be forced to cut it's budget by lowering pay or otherwise contracting it's business in some way. B. It will raise it's price at the consumer level, thereby bypassing the tax and passing it on to the customer -- all of us -- whether we are evil rich people or not.

Third, there is no shortage of money coming into the state. There is a shortage of intelligent and constitutionally acceptable ways to spend the money. Cuts need to be made. But the state purposefully holds education, police, and fire as ransom for just such an occasion because they know they can sell the idea of raising taxes if its for the good of the children. If our state could be made to stop cutting the essentials before they cut the special interests and pet projects, then we would have no budget crisis in the state.

Fourth, historically, cutting taxes has lead to higher tax revenue.

Fifth, if I could quote our president, "the last thing we want to do in a down economy is to raise taxes."

Sixth, I would be willing to bet that one or two years from now, after 66 & 67 are passed, hardly any of that money will be going to education. We will get a little boost. In fact, I may not have to change class rooms next year if these pass, and our department is looking forward to having about $500.00 to spend on supplies if these measures pass. But after that....

Seventh, the economy will come back, and school funding will come back with it -- even if you don't vote for 66 & 67. Voting for these two measures will be asking to artificially bring back the "economy" to schools.

We don't need artificiality, we need solid budgetary funding. We need a law at the state level that locks funding for infrastructure, schools, police, fire -- the essentials -- while allowing the non-essentials to be cut... not the other way around.

I can't imagine what it would be like if I was in a household where my spouse makes half the income by being a business owner while I'm a teacher. If I vote for 66 & 67 I would be hurting my spouse, and our overall income. If I don't vote for them, I would be risking having larger class sizes (which are guaranteed anyway) fewer text books (which, in most cases, is a good thing) and less money all around (which is also guaranteed).

The negative effects on schools will continue with or without 66 & 67, it's merely a band aide to hide the negative effects till the economy comes back. The negative effects will continue till we have changes at the state budget level. But how are we to force those changes till we start telling them to fix the problems instead of voting for a band aide?

[Josh]

But the state purposefully holds education, police, and fire as ransom for just such an occasion because they know they can sell the idea of raising taxes if its for the good of the children.

I feel this same way.

All this puts teachers who are thinking about the bigger picture in a quandry.

So- a related question that I'm not particularly informed about-

Where exactly is the waste in Oregon's budget? In other words, what should be trimmed?

[carebear]

I agree and will be voting no. I love how they make it sound like a good measure...

[rbbailey]

Off the top of my head, Josh, the Oregon Health Plan. Now, I know what sounds like a knee jerk right-wing easy answer when we are already talking about this type of issue anyway, but I know a few things about the OHP that really have angered me over the years. For instance, my sister is on it, even though she has chosen not to get a job, and still has $90k in the bank.

I also know that I used to drive for Meals-on-Wheels/Loaves and Fishes... guess what? Tax payer dollars. Yeah, I thought it was a charity. Nope. I sort of sucked it up and drove the meals around a few times anyway -- I use my snow days at school to do it with the Land Rover when hardly anyone else can make it through the snow banks and such -- but then it occurred to me that I had spent several days delivering some 30 or so meals to people who were supposedly elderly folks who can't get out on their own anymore. Nope. Not one person over 40 years old, not one under 20. Most of them were smoking weed when I opened the door. Not one of them said thank you. And not one of them showed any sign of being disabled in the least. Tax payer dollars.

OHSU Tram, the various MAX lines that have been built in recent years even after voters told the government not to build them when the issue was put on the ballot, etc.... Did you know that tax payer dollars are spent on the transportation, housing, and personal body-guard security for Mexican Consulate officials to come to Portland 2-3 times per year to give seminars on how to get around U.S. Immigration laws?

I've got lists of stuff! I served as the vice president for a philanthropic foundation in Portland for three years, and for three years before that as a board member. One of the odd things that started happening about 4 years ago is that a lot of the local 501(c)(3) organizations in this area started dropping off our radar as being places to give money to. The reason is that many of them are now getting tax payer dollars -- $10's of thousands of dollars of our money.

Did you catch the one about the translator for the city of Portland... the one who was hired to speak Klingon? Or how about the 3 figure salary that is being paid to many of Portland's city officials who are in redundant positions. Yes, two or more people hold the same job, and they are all getting the salary for basically doing nothing.

How about the new Mult. Co. Jail that was built years ago, never occupied?

I suppose I could go on, and on.

I think the 66 & 67 issue comes down to two things for me. First, I really get turned off when people lie to me or try to sell me on an idea that isn't anything like what they are making it out to be. That right there is pretty much enough to make me vote NO. Along those lines, I really hate the double standard of the teacher's union saying that they are neutral while telling me to vote a specific way. Neutral, while asking me to volunteer my time to call people to tell them to vote a certain way. Again, the disingenuousness alone is enough to abstain my vote, even vote NO.

Second, I can't get over the idea that 66 & 67 are a short term band aide, even if they are harmless in any other way. The economy will do what it does without them, but it will come back slower if they pass. Voting Yes on these two measures is to think in the immediate, to vote No is to have a perspective of the long-term.

[krhagan19]

I again would vote no, if I had not escaped political suicide and moved to a state with a functioning government.